Patient engagement in designing, conducting, and disseminating clinical pain research: IMMPACT recommended considerations.

ABSTRACT: In the traditional clinical research model, patients are typically involved only as participants. However, there has been a shift in recent years highlighting the value and contributions that patients bring as members of the research team, across the clinical research lifecycle. It is becoming increasingly evident that to develop research that is both meaningful to people who have the targeted condition and is feasible, there are important benefits of involving patients in the planning, conduct, and dissemination of research from its earliest stages. In fact, research funders and regulatory agencies are now explicitly encouraging, and sometimes requiring, that patients are engaged as partners in research. Although this approach has become commonplace in some fields of clinical research, it remains the exception in clinical pain research. As such, the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials convened a meeting with patient partners and international representatives from academia, patient advocacy groups, government regulatory agencies, research funding organizations, academic journals, and the biopharmaceutical industry to develop consensus recommendations for advancing patient engagement in all stages of clinical pain research in an effective and purposeful manner. This article summarizes the results of this meeting and offers considerations for meaningful and authentic engagement of patient partners in clinical pain research, including recommendations for representation, timing, continuous engagement, measurement, reporting, and research dissemination.

Evaluating the balance of benefits and harms in chronic pain clinical trials: prioritizing individual participants over individual outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) generally assess efficacy and safety separately, with the conclusion of whether a treatment is beneficial based solely on the efficacy endpoint. However, assessing and combining efficacy and safety domains, using a single composite outcome measure, can provide a more comprehensive assessment of the overall effect of a treatment. Furthermore, composite outcomes can incorporate information regarding the relationship between the individual outcomes. In fact, such outcomes have been suggested in the clinical trials literature for at least 15 years. OBJECTIVES: To (1) identify whether recent primary publications of chronic pain RCTs from major pain journals included a composite outcome measure of benefits and harms and (2) discuss the potential benefits of such outcomes in various stages of treatment development, including as outcome measures in RCTs, and to support decisions of Data and Safety Monitoring Boards and ordering of treatments in the context of treatment guidelines. EVIDENCE REVIEW: RCTs published in 6 major pain journals published between 2016 and 2021 that investigated interventions for chronic pain were reviewed. FINDINGS: Of 73 RCTs identified, only 2 included a composite outcome measure of benefits and harms. Both of these articles compared 2 active treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Composite outcomes of benefits and harms are underutilized in chronic pain RCTs. The advantages and challenges of using such outcomes are discussed.

Recommendations for terminology and the identification of neuropathic pain in people with spine-related leg pain. Outcomes from the NeuPSIG working group.

ABSTRACT: Pain radiating from the spine into the leg is commonly referred to as "sciatica," "Sciatica" may include various conditions such as radicular pain or painful radiculopathy. It may be associated with significant consequences for the person living with the condition, imposing a reduced quality of life and substantial direct and indirect costs. The main challenges associated with a diagnosis of "sciatica" include those related to the inconsistent use of terminology for the diagnostic labels and the identification of neuropathic pain. These challenges hinder collective clinical and scientific understanding regarding these conditions. In this position paper, we describe the outcome of a working group commissioned by the Neuropathic Pain Special Interest Group (NeuPSIG) of the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) which was tasked with the following objectives: (1) to revise the use of terminology for classifying spine-related leg pain and (2) to propose a way forward on the identification of neuropathic pain in the context of spine-related leg pain. The panel recommended discouraging the term "sciatica" for use in clinical practice and research without further specification of what it entails. The term "spine-related leg pain" is proposed as an umbrella term to include the case definitions of somatic referred pain and radicular pain with and without radiculopathy. The panel proposed an adaptation of the neuropathic pain grading system in the context of spine-related leg pain to facilitate the identification of neuropathic pain and initiation of specific management in this patient population.

Research objectives and general considerations for pragmatic clinical trials of pain treatments: IMMPACT statement.

ABSTRACT: Many questions regarding the clinical management of people experiencing pain and related health policy decision-making may best be answered by pragmatic controlled trials. To generate clinically relevant and widely applicable findings, such trials aim to reproduce elements of routine clinical care or are embedded within clinical workflows. In contrast with traditional efficacy trials, pragmatic trials are intended to address a broader set of external validity questions critical for stakeholders (clinicians, healthcare leaders, policymakers, insurers, and patients) in considering the adoption and use of evidence-based treatments in daily clinical care. This article summarizes methodological considerations for pragmatic trials, mainly concerning methods of fundamental importance to the internal validity of trials. The relationship between these methods and common pragmatic trials methods and goals is considered, recognizing that the resulting trial designs are highly dependent on the specific research question under investigation. The basis of this statement was an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) systematic review of methods and a consensus meeting. The meeting was organized by the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION) public-private partnership. The consensus process was informed by expert presentations, panel and consensus discussions, and a preparatory systematic review. In the context of pragmatic trials of pain treatments, we present fundamental considerations for the planning phase of pragmatic trials, including the specification of trial objectives, the selection of adequate designs, and methods to enhance internal validity while maintaining the ability to answer pragmatic research questions.

Examining the Relationships Among Treatment, Pain, and Physical Function in Patients With Osteoarthritis: A Mediation-Modeling Approach.

OBJECTIVES: To better understand the relationships among treatment, pain, and physical function (PF). METHODS: Data were collected from 2 published randomized clinical trials of osteoarthritis patients who received tanezumab or a placebo. PF was measured by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) PF domain. Pain (WOMAC pain domain) was a mediator of the effect of treatment on PF. A set of mediation models were investigated. Variables were treatment (tanezumab vs placebo), WOMAC pain domain, and WOMAC PF domain. Cross-sectional mediation models were assessed separately at different weeks. Longitudinal mediation models used data from all weeks simultaneously. Results could identify a steady-state period. RESULTS: The cross-sectional and longitudinal mediation models showed a stable indirect effect of treatment through the pain on PF across time, indicating that a pseudo-steady-state model was appropriate. Therefore, the longitudinal steady-state mediation models were used with all available data assuming relationships among variables in the model being the same at all time points; results showed that the indirect effect of the treatment on PF was 77.8% in study 1 (NCT02697773) and 74.1% in study 2 (NCT02709486), both P <0.0001, whereas the direct effect was 22.2% for study 1 ( P = 0.0003) and 25.9% for study 2 ( P = 0.0019). DISCUSSION: At least 75% of the treatment effect of tanezumab on physical functioning can be explained by the improvements in pain. However, tanezumab had an additional effect on physical functioning (~25%) that, was independent of improvements in pain. Such independent effects are of considerable interest and require further research to determine their mechanisms.

Real-world data and evidence in pain research: a qualitative systematic review of methods in current practice.

The use of routinely collected health data (real-world data, RWD) to generate real-world evidence (RWE) for research purposes is a growing field. Computerized search methods, large electronic databases, and the development of novel statistical methods allow for valid analysis of data outside its primary clinical purpose. Here, we systematically reviewed the methodology used for RWE studies in pain research. We searched 3 databases (PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science) for studies using retrospective data sources comparing multiple groups or treatments. The protocol was registered under the DOI:10.17605/OSF.IO/KGVRM. A total of 65 studies were included. Of those, only 4 compared pharmacological interventions, whereas 49 investigated differences in surgical procedures, with the remaining studying alternative or psychological interventions or epidemiological factors. Most 39 studies reported significant results in their primary comparison, and an additional 12 reported comparable effectiveness. Fifty-eight studies used propensity scores to account for group differences, 38 of them using 1:1 case:control matching. Only 17 of 65 studies provided sensitivity analyses to show robustness of their findings, and only 4 studies provided links to publicly accessible protocols. RWE is a relevant construct that can provide evidence complementary to randomized controlled trials (RCTs), especially in scenarios where RCTs are difficult to conduct. The high proportion of studies reporting significant differences between groups or comparable effectiveness could imply a relevant degree of publication bias. RWD provides a potentially important resource to expand high-quality evidence beyond clinical trials, but rigorous quality standards need to be set to maximize the validity of RWE studies.

Optimizing and Accelerating the Development of Precision Pain Treatments for Chronic Pain: IMMPACT Review and Recommendations.

Large variability in the individual response to even the most-efficacious pain treatments is observed clinically, which has led to calls for a more personalized, tailored approach to treating patients with pain (ie, "precision pain medicine"). Precision pain medicine, currently an aspirational goal, would consist of empirically based algorithms that determine the optimal treatments, or treatment combinations, for specific patients (ie, targeting the right treatment, in the right dose, to the right patient, at the right time). Answering this question of "what works for whom" will certainly improve the clinical care of patients with pain. It may also support the success of novel drug development in pain, making it easier to identify novel treatments that work for certain patients and more accurately identify the magnitude of the treatment effect for those subgroups. Significant preliminary work has been done in this area, and analgesic trials are beginning to utilize precision pain medicine approaches such as stratified allocation on the basis of prespecified patient phenotypes using assessment methodologies such as quantitative sensory testing. Current major challenges within the field include: 1) identifying optimal measurement approaches to assessing patient characteristics that are most robustly and consistently predictive of inter-patient variation in specific analgesic treatment outcomes, 2) designing clinical trials that can identify treatment-by-phenotype interactions, and 3) selecting the most promising therapeutics to be tested in this way. This review surveys the current state of precision pain medicine, with a focus on drug treatments (which have been most-studied in a precision pain medicine context). It further presents a set of evidence-based recommendations for accelerating the application of precision pain methods in chronic pain research. PERSPECTIVE: Given the considerable variability in treatment outcomes for chronic pain, progress in precision pain treatment is critical for the field. An array of phenotypes and mechanisms contribute to chronic pain; this review summarizes current knowledge regarding which treatments are most effective for patients with specific biopsychosocial characteristics.

Clinical Meaningfulness of Response to Tanezumab in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain: Analysis From a 56-Week, Randomized, Placebo- and Tramadol-Controlled, Phase 3 Trial.

INTRODUCTION: A recent phase 3, randomized, placebo- and tramadol-controlled trial (56-week treatment/24-week safety follow-up) demonstrated efficacy of tanezumab 10 mg in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) and a history of inadequate response to standard-of-care analgesics. Here, we report on the clinical meaningfulness of treatment response in this study, focused on secondary measures of pain, interference with daily functions, overall disease status, and satisfaction with treatment. METHODS: Patients received placebo (up to week 16; n = 406), subcutaneously administered (SC) tanezumab 5 mg (every 8 weeks; n = 407), SC tanezumab 10 mg (every 8 weeks; n = 407), or orally administered tramadol prolonged-release (100-300 mg/day; n = 605) for 56 weeks. Patient's global assessment of low back pain (PGA-LBP), Brief Pain Inventory-short form (BPI-sf), Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM), and modified Patient-Reported Treatment Impact (mPRTI) were assessed at weeks 16 and 56. RESULTS: At week 16, significant (p < 0.05) improvements over placebo were evident with tanezumab for the PGA-LBP (10 mg) and most BPI-sf (both doses), TSQM (both doses), and mPRTI (both doses) items assessed. Improvements over baseline persisted for the PGA-LBP and BPI-sf at week 56. However, the magnitude of improvements was modestly lower at week 56 relative to week 16. Tramadol did not improve PGA-LBP or BPI-sf scores versus placebo at week 16. Most differences between tanezumab and tramadol at week 56 did not reach the level of statistical significance for all endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: The totality of the evidence as captured by measures of pain, interference with daily function, patient overall assessment of disease status, and satisfaction with treatment demonstrates the clinically meaningful benefit of tanezumab for some patients with CLBP compared with placebo. CLINICALTRIALS: gov: NCT02528253.

Predicting Treatment Response with Sensory Phenotyping in Post-Traumatic Neuropathic Pain.

OBJECTIVE: Currently available treatments for neuropathic pain are only modestly efficacious when assessed in randomized clinical trials and work for only some patients in the clinic. Induced-pain or gain-of-function phenotypes have been shown to predict response to analgesics (vs placebos) in patients with neuropathic pain. However, the predictive value of these phenotypes has never been studied in post-traumatic neuropathic pain. METHODS: Mixed-effects models for repeated measures were used to evaluate the efficacy of pregabalin vs placebo in subgroups with induced-pain phenotypes (i.e., hyperalgesia or allodynia) in data from a recent, multinational randomized clinical trial (N = 539) that identified phenotypic subgroups through the use of a structured clinical exam. RESULTS: The difference in mean pain score between the active and placebo groups (i.e., delta) after 15 weeks of treatment for the subgroup with hyperalgesia was -0.76 (P = 0.001), compared with 0.19 (P = 0.47) for the subgroup that did not have hyperalgesia. The treatment-by-phenotype interaction, which tests whether subgroups have statistically different treatment responses, was significant (P = 0.0067). The delta for the subgroup with allodynia was -0.31 (P = 0.22), compared with -0.30 (P = 0.22) for the subgroup that did not have allodynia (treatment-by-phenotype interaction P = 0.98). CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that hyperalgesia, but not allodynia, predicts response to pregabalin in patients with chronic post-traumatic neuropathic pain. This study extends the growing data supporting the utility of induced-pain phenotypes to predict response to analgesics in post-traumatic neuropathic pain. Sensory phenotyping in large, multisite trials through the use of a structured clinical exam has the potential to accelerate the development of new analgesics and improve the generalizability of clinical trial results.

Multimethod quantitative benefit-risk assessment of treatments for moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVE: Demonstrate how benefit-risk profiles of systemic treatments for moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis (OA) can be compared using a quantitative approach accounting for patient preference. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This study used a multimethod benefit-risk modelling approach to quantifiably compare treatments of moderate-to-severe OA. In total four treatments and placebo were compared. Comparisons were based on four attributes identified as most important to patients. Patient Global Assessment of Osteoarthritis was included as a favourable effect. Unfavourable effects, or risks, included opioid dependence, nonfatal myocardial infarction and rapidly progressive OA leading to total joint replacement. Clinical data from randomized clinical trials, a meta-analysis of opioid dependence and a long-term study of celecoxib were mapped into value functions and weighted with patient preferences from a discrete choice experiment. RESULTS: Lower-dose NGFi had the highest weighted net benefit-risk score (0.901), followed by higher-dose NGFi (0.889) and NSAIDs (0.852), and the lowest score was for opioids (0.762). Lower-dose NGFi was the highest-ranked treatment option even when assuming a low incidence (0.34% instead of 4.7%) of opioid dependence (ie, opioid benefit-risk score 808) and accounting for both the uncertainty in clinical effect estimates (first rank probability 46% vs 20% for NSAIDs) and imprecision in patient preference estimates (predicted choice probability 0.26, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.25-0.28 vs 0.21, 95% CI 0.19-0.23 for NSAIDs). CONCLUSION: The multimethod approach to quantitative benefit-risk modelling allowed the interpretation of clinical data from the patient perspective while accounting for uncertainties in the clinical effect estimates and imprecision in patient preferences.

Benefit-risk assessment and reporting in clinical trials of chronic pain treatments: IMMPACT recommendations.

ABSTRACT: Chronic pain clinical trials have historically assessed benefit and risk outcomes separately. However, a growing body of research suggests that a composite metric that accounts for benefit and risk in relation to each other can provide valuable insights into the effects of different treatments. Researchers and regulators have developed a variety of benefit-risk composite metrics, although the extent to which these methods apply to randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of chronic pain has not been evaluated in the published literature. This article was motivated by an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials consensus meeting and is based on the expert opinion of those who attended. In addition, a review of the benefit-risk assessment tools used in published chronic pain RCTs or highlighted by key professional organizations (ie, Cochrane, European Medicines Agency, Outcome Measures in Rheumatology, and U.S. Food and Drug Administration) was completed. Overall, the review found that benefit-risk metrics are not commonly used in RCTs of chronic pain despite the availability of published methods. A primary recommendation is that composite metrics of benefit-risk should be combined at the level of the individual patient, when possible, in addition to the benefit-risk assessment at the treatment group level. Both levels of analysis (individual and group) can provide valuable insights into the relationship between benefits and risks associated with specific treatments across different patient subpopulations. The systematic assessment of benefit-risk in clinical trials has the potential to enhance the clinical meaningfulness of RCT results.

Tanezumab for chronic low back pain: a long-term, randomized, celecoxib-controlled Japanese Phase III safety study.

Aim & methods: This trial investigated long-term (56-week treatment/24-week follow-up) use of subcutaneous tanezumab (5 or 10 mg every 8 weeks) or oral celecoxib (200 mg/day) in Japanese patients with chronic low back pain. Results & conclusion: Tanezumab safety was consistent with previous studies, except overall adverse events (tanezumab 5 mg = 63.0%, tanezumab 10 mg = 54.8%, celecoxib = 67.4%) and events of abnormal peripheral sensation (tanezumab 5 mg = 9.8%, tanezumab 10 mg = 4.3%, celecoxib = 4.3%) were more frequent with 5 mg than 10 mg tanezumab. Joint safety event rates were 1.1% for tanezumab 5 mg, 2.2% for tanezumab 10 mg and 0% for celecoxib. All treatments improved pain and function throughout the treatment period. Clinical trial registration number: NCT02725411.

In this study, researchers looked at the safety of tanezumab (a medication that blocks nerve growth factor) in Japanese people with chronic low back pain (CLBP). Researchers also looked at how well tanezumab improves the symptoms (pain and difficulty doing activities) of CLBP. People in the study were given oral (taken by mouth) celecoxib (a medication commonly used to treat CLBP) or injections of tanezumab (5 or 10 mg doses) under the skin of the belly or upper leg every 8 weeks for a total of 56 weeks. Side effects (something expected or unexpected that people experienced during the study that may or may not be due to the medication they received) occurred in 63.0% of people receiving tanezumab 5 mg, 54.8% of people receiving tanezumab 10 mg and 67.4% of patients receiving celecoxib. More people receiving tanezumab 5 mg (9.8% of people) had a side effect related to abnormal peripheral sensation (tingling, burning, numbness or sensitivity to heat or cold hands or feet) than people receiving tanezumab 10 mg (4.3% of people) or celecoxib (4.3% of people). More people receiving tanezumab (5 mg = 1.1% of people, 10 mg = 2.2% of people) had a problem with one of their joints (knees or hips) during the study than people receiving celecoxib (0% of people). All treatments improved pain and the ability to do activities. Overall, the researchers concluded that tanezumab was well tolerated in most people and may improve the symptoms of CLBP.

Research design considerations for chronic pain prevention clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations.

Although certain risk factors can identify individuals who are most likely to develop chronic pain, few interventions to prevent chronic pain have been identified. To facilitate the identification of preventive interventions, an IMMPACT meeting was convened to discuss research design considerations for clinical trials investigating the prevention of chronic pain. We present general design considerations for prevention trials in populations that are at relatively high risk for developing chronic pain. Specific design considerations included subject identification, timing and duration of treatment, outcomes, timing of assessment, and adjusting for risk factors in the analyses. We provide a detailed examination of 4 models of chronic pain prevention (ie, chronic postsurgical pain, postherpetic neuralgia, chronic low back pain, and painful chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy). The issues discussed can, in many instances, be extrapolated to other chronic pain conditions. These examples were selected because they are representative models of primary and secondary prevention, reflect persistent pain resulting from multiple insults (ie, surgery, viral infection, injury, and toxic or noxious element exposure), and are chronically painful conditions that are treated with a range of interventions. Improvements in the design of chronic pain prevention trials could improve assay sensitivity and thus accelerate the identification of efficacious interventions. Such interventions would have the potential to reduce the prevalence of chronic pain in the population. Additionally, standardization of outcomes in prevention clinical trials will facilitate meta-analyses and systematic reviews and improve detection of preventive strategies emerging from clinical trials.

Research approaches for evaluating opioid sparing in clinical trials of acute and chronic pain treatments: Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials recommendations.

ABSTRACT: Randomized clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy of opioid analgesics for the treatment of acute and chronic pain conditions, and for some patients, these medications may be the only effective treatment available. Unfortunately, opioid analgesics are also associated with major risks (eg, opioid use disorder) and adverse outcomes (eg, respiratory depression and falls). The risks and adverse outcomes associated with opioid analgesics have prompted efforts to reduce their use in the treatment of both acute and chronic pain. This article presents Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) consensus recommendations for the design of opioid-sparing clinical trials. The recommendations presented in this article are based on the following definition of an opioid-sparing intervention: any intervention that (1) prevents the initiation of treatment with opioid analgesics, (2) decreases the duration of such treatment, (3) reduces the total dosages of opioids that are prescribed for or used by patients, or (4) reduces opioid-related adverse outcomes (without increasing opioid dosages), all without causing an unacceptable increase in pain. These recommendations are based on the results of a background review, presentations and discussions at an IMMPACT consensus meeting, and iterative drafts of this article modified to accommodate input from the co-authors. We discuss opioid sparing definitions, study objectives, outcome measures, the assessment of opioid-related adverse events, incorporation of adequate pain control in trial design, interpretation of research findings, and future research priorities to inform opioid-sparing trial methods. The considerations and recommendations presented in this article are meant to help guide the design, conduct, analysis, and interpretation of future trials.

Research design considerations for randomized controlled trials of spinal cord stimulation for pain: Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials/Institute of Neuromodulation/International Neuromodulation Society recommendations.

ABSTRACT: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an interventional nonpharmacologic treatment used for chronic pain and other indications. Methods for evaluating the safety and efficacy of SCS have evolved from uncontrolled and retrospective studies to prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Although randomization overcomes certain types of bias, additional challenges to the validity of RCTs of SCS include blinding, choice of control groups, nonspecific effects of treatment variables (eg, paresthesia, device programming and recharging, psychological support, and rehabilitative techniques), and safety considerations. To address these challenges, 3 professional societies (Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials, Institute of Neuromodulation, and International Neuromodulation Society) convened a meeting to develop consensus recommendations on the design, conduct, analysis, and interpretation of RCTs of SCS for chronic pain. This article summarizes the results of this meeting. Highlights of our recommendations include disclosing all funding source and potential conflicts; incorporating mechanistic objectives when possible; avoiding noninferiority designs without internal demonstration of assay sensitivity; achieving and documenting double-blinding whenever possible; documenting investigator and site experience; keeping all information provided to patients balanced with respect to expectation of benefit; disclosing all information provided to patients, including verbal scripts; using placebo/sham controls when possible; capturing a complete set of outcome assessments; accounting for ancillary pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments in a clear manner; providing a complete description of intended and actual programming interactions; making a prospective ascertainment of SCS-specific safety outcomes; training patients and researchers on appropriate expectations, outcome assessments, and other key aspects of study performance; and providing transparent and complete reporting of results according to applicable reporting guidelines.

Systematic Review of Research Methods and Reporting Quality of Randomized Clinical Trials of Spinal Cord Stimulation for Pain.

This systematic review assessed design characteristics and reporting quality of published randomized clinical trials of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for treatment of pain in adults and adolescents. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018090412). Relevant articles were identified by searching the following databases through December 31, 2018: MEDLINE, Embase, WikiStim, The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Forty-six studies were included. Eighty-seven percent of articles identified a pain-related primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included physical functioning, health-related quality of life, and reductions in opioid use. Nineteen of the 46 studies prespecified adverse events as an outcome, with 4 assessing them as a primary outcome. Eleven studies stated that they blinded participants. Of these, only 5 were assessed as being adequately blinded. The number of participants enrolled was generally low (median 38) and study durations were short (median 12 weeks), particularly in studies of angina. Fifteen studies employed an intention-to-treat analysis, of which only seven specified a method to accommodate missing data. Review of these studies identified deficiencies in both reporting and methodology. The review's findings suggest areas for improving the design of future studies and increasing transparency of reporting. PERSPECTIVE: This article presents a systematic review of research methods and reporting quality of randomized clinical trials of SCS for the treatment of various pain complaints. The review identifies deficiencies in both methodology and reporting, which may inform the design of future studies and improve reporting standards.

Interpretation of chronic pain clinical trial outcomes: IMMPACT recommended considerations.

Interpreting randomized clinical trials (RCTs) is crucial to making decisions regarding the use of analgesic treatments in clinical practice. In this article, we report on an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) consensus meeting organized by the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks, the purpose of which was to recommend approaches that facilitate interpretation of analgesic RCTs. We review issues to consider when drawing conclusions from RCTs, as well as common methods for reporting RCT results and the limitations of each method. These issues include the type of trial, study design, statistical analysis methods, magnitude of the estimated beneficial and harmful effects and associated precision, availability of alternative treatments and their benefit-risk profile, clinical importance of the change from baseline both within and between groups, presentation of the outcome data, and the limitations of the approaches used.

Tanezumab for chronic low back pain: a randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled, phase 3 study of efficacy and safety.

ABSTRACT: This randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study (56-week treatment; 24-week follow-up) assessed tanezumab in patients with chronic low back pain and history of inadequate response to standard-of-care analgesics (NCT02528253). Patients received placebo, subcutaneous tanezumab (5 or 10 mg every 8 weeks), or oral tramadol prolonged-release (100-300 mg/day). Primary endpoint was change in low back pain intensity (LBPI) at week 16 for tanezumab vs placebo. Key secondary endpoints were proportion of patients with ≥50% decrease in LBPI at week 16, change in Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire at week 16, and change in LBPI at week 2 for tanezumab vs placebo. Adverse events and joint safety were assessed through weeks 56 and 80, respectively. Tanezumab 10 mg met the primary endpoint by significantly improving LBPI at week 16 vs placebo; least squares (LS) mean (95% CI) difference = -0.40 (-0.76 to -0.04; P = 0.0281). Tanezumab 10 mg significantly improved all key secondary endpoints. Tanezumab 5 mg did not meet the primary endpoint (LS mean [95% CI] treatment difference vs placebo = -0.30 [-0.66 to 0.07; P = 0.1117]), preventing formal testing of key secondary endpoints for this dose. The proportion of patients with ≥50% improvement in LBPI at week 16 was 37.4% in the placebo group, 43.3% in the tanezumab 5 mg group (Odds ratio [95% CI] vs placebo = 1.28 [0.97 to 1.70; P = 0.0846]), and 46.3% in the tanezumab 10 mg group (Odds ratio [95% CI] vs placebo = 1.45 [1.09 to 1.91; P = 0.0101]). Prespecified joint safety events were more frequent with tanezumab 10 mg (2.6%) than tanezumab 5 mg (1.0%), tramadol (0.2%), or placebo (0%). Seven patients, all in the tanezumab 10 mg group (1.4%), underwent total joint replacement. In conclusion, tanezumab 10 mg significantly improved pain and function vs placebo in patients with difficult-to-treat chronic low back pain. Tanezumab was associated with a low rate of joint safety events, some requiring joint replacement.